Open Letter to Southwark Council

Dear Councillors,

Although you have said to others that you agreed to consider our proposals and made provision for council officers to discuss them, you have in fact acknowledged to us that the officers were moved to other projects and that you no longer have time. So no technical discussion of our proposals for timed restrictions, or the principles that might apply (including, importantly, as to who may have access during timed closures etc), has ever taken place.

You say that you have unanswered questions about the One Dulwich proposal. Some of those have obviously fallen away due to the shrinking of the Council scheme, others are answered in our discussion paper of 28th May (on our website). But many of your questions can only sensibly be answered after we have that promised discussion with the Council officers who are traffic professionals, and with you.

Like all ideas for discussion, it’s an iterative process. The Council’s Phase 3 proposals themselves changed during the consultation period. To date, timed closures have been dismissed by you out of hand as impractical (or by some lobby groups as a matter of principle), yet they clearly exist and work well in other parts of London and in other parts of the country.

So let’s have that discussion.

The process and timing

For the benefit of others not party to the many exchanges between you and numerous residents, we’d like to set out a few important points that explain why we are pursuing our initiative now.

We consider that the Phase 2 consultation was flawed. You have mentioned that there were packed meetings, but many don’t recall those; and the fact is that a mere 217 responded online. Southwark’s own feedback report said any other paper and oral survey responses could not be safely relied upon. Only 122 approved of the permanent closure of Dulwich Village junction. Despite numerous requests, no information as to who the respondents were has been provided (we have offered help to establish the data).

The outcome of Phase 2 was referred to the traffic engineers who produced the holistic set of proposals – not ‘options’ - presented to the public for consultation as Phase 3. You have acknowledged that there was an advisory group, we understand without representation from local residents’ associations, but with actual or indirect representatives of lobby groups who support permanent closures (as you do yourselves – which you have been honest enough to say).

The very fact that over 2,000 responded to Phase 3 shows how deficient engagement was in Phase 2. And, of course, before the Council could finalise the plans, Phase 3 was supposed to have been followed by Phase 4 and Phase 5, including further engagement with the local community. That will not now happen. Yet the Phase 3 consultation is being taken as conclusive justification for the Covid measures. As you know, we have concerns about the data outcome from Phase 3, but you have agreed to provide more information.

Unlike well-established lobby groups, with thousands of members to corral into action, One Dulwich has had to get up to speed in a very short time. But our idea of timed restrictions has not come ‘out of the blue’, as has been suggested. Timed restrictions had been offered scheme-wide by the Council in Phase 2 (‘camera filters’ referred to in the feedback report), but by the time of Phase 3 were suggested for limited parts of the scheme only (with entry for permit holders), yet notably not for the Village junction.

Timed closures had also been proposed as preferred options by residents in both Area B and Area C in February and March, and had been referred to (and dismissed) at the third public consultation meeting at JAGS. In other words, One Dulwich summed up in our proposal of 27 March all the requests for area-wide timed restrictions that had been going on for months, but which had never been properly debated or discussed.

As you know, we share the Council’s overall aims. We know you do not question our motives, which are community-driven. We look forward to further discussion.

Regards

Trevor Moore

On behalf of One Dulwich

A copy of this letter can also be downloaded here.